It sounds like a fairly balanced encounter with respect to the PCs, based on the breakdown of who did what that you provide. So the answer “in principle” is 1/13th of what each character needs to go up a level, totalled and divided evenly amongst them.

The “By-The-Book” answer is to get the average level of the party (6+6+4+4+4+2+10=36; 36/7=5.14, so call it 5) and compare that with the table in the DMG that gives experience for an EL that is 2 higher than the CR of a single Huge Mammoth, divided equally amongst the 7 characters.

As for “My Answer”, I have a blog post scheduled for later this month that should answer that explicitly, and which may clear up you confusion once and for all, in which I do away with the XP table in the DMG completely and offer an alternative XP system!

My personal recommendation for an epic exploration FRPG that could roll on and on without breaking the system or forcing you to take the game to an unrecognizable level would be “d6 Fantasy” by West End Games. Not only does it not try to impose it’s own rigid pace on character growth, it neither forces that character growth into developing super powers nor force it down mathematical dead-ends — a very rare combination in game design. It’s got a lot of other selling points as well, but that’s what makes it particularly appropriate for your needs.

Another option that you could use regardless of game system is to plan it as a multi-generational campaign, as pioneered in the “Pendragon” game. Basically, you force the years to pass and limit the number of adventuring opportunities, insisting that PCs take time out to have lives (largely offstage) instead of adventuring 24/7. Then you provide opportunities for developing families, and plan for the eventual retirement of the original adventurers when their heirs are able to step in, young and fresh.

@Mike E: Thanks. I start with the central cast – in this case, Dwarves and Elves and Humans, purely because I wanted to set adventures in all three different realms. You then need to start the PCs in one area and have some plot-based reason that they can’t ignore to move into one of the others. A war between two with the third party caught in the middle is always a useful base story (though by no means the only one). That then raises the question of why they would go to war and how can that information lead the PCs into still another area; the Drow immediatly suggested themselves, manupilative types that they are. The next thing has to be a way to lead the plotline from the Drow to somewhere else;
so far, the campaign has only explored the fringes of human society, and has only inferred the societies outside these realms (orcs and bugbears), so one of those is the obvious candidate. That’s how I came up with it. Finally, I went back over the final plotline; I had started with 2 levels per realm, and had to adjust that somewhat to cover the levels of expected action based on what the plot had going on. The result is far more linear than those I personally run, where I might spend 4 or 5 levels establishing who the NPC players in the ultimate situation are going to be (using subplots for the most part), another 4-5 levels having them interact both with each other and with the party, each in accordance with their own agenda, and another 4-5 levels having the overt plotline establish itself through the synergies of these interactions. Whatever plots the PCs choose not to prioritise get resolved in those 4-5 levels, whichever ones they don’t then become bigger problems as they’ve had more time to mature, and more complex as the NPCs whose schemes have been interfered with meddle in the outcome (for their own benefit) or react to the PCs actions. These then come together for the big finish. Multiple overlapping and interacting plots and subplots, plus side-quests, all leading to a big finish, in other words. The nature of that big finish depends on what the PCs do and don’t do; if there are six major plots and the PCs can only stop 5 of them, then the campaign has six possible big finishes, with the one that actually gets used being selected by what the PCs choose not to do.

Another technique that I use to construct these is similar but not identical; sequential, overlapping plotlines. Levels 1-3 might be one plotline, with the key NPCs for plotline 2 being introduced through subplots. They then take centre stage for plotline 2 (levels 4-6) with the characters for plotline 3 appearing through subplots (if they havn’t already), and so on.

That’s where the concept of 250 encounters or so equals a campaign works to it’s maximum advantage – the breakdown can be any division of those that’s convenient. It gives a clear indication of the size of any dungeon that’s involved, for example – if you only have 13 encounters allocated to a dungeoncrawl, then either it’s very easy as dungeoncrawls go, or it’s relatively small.

I also like to allocate 1-2 more levels to each stage than I think will actually be needed, and use character-derived subplots and side quests to fill in the gaps along the way; that helps tie the campaign and the characters together. That means that you can start with the same basic campaign structure and have the actual scenarios be different for two different gaming groups, because the player characters are different in each.

I do have problems with pacing, but am constantly working on it and have developed a way to get around it.

I do as Ameron does, and just give the PC’s levels when I feel it is time, and that helps with pacing quite a bit and my players like it that way..

Thanks so much for all the wonderful ideas and feeback Mike and Johnn!

That is a great idea Ameron. Before my campaign starts I will ask my players how they would feel about that system. I think I can balance out their lack of control over XP by handing out other rewards such as treasure, skill points or reputation.

In terms of not skipping the slow parts, there is also potential for information overload to consider – taking things too slow frustrates the players and can make important plot points so slow to arrive that the overall plot is lost. It’s a juggling act between the two, which is why some objective pacing mechanism is so useful. XP can be a tool for the GM to use to measure the pacing of his campaign, not just an inconvenience.

I particularly like your advice “Don’t set interesting encounters/locations too close together.” I know this is something that I’ve taken great pains to remember as a DM.

As far as XP, I’ve recently adopted the philosophy that the players only advance when I feel it’s appropriate for the story. This eliminates the need for them to track XP and I can advance them as fast or as slow as I feel is necessary for the bigger story arc.

Good job, guys.

Ameron’s last blog post..Reputation (Part 3)

The fact that you are a player in the campaign and not the GM raises some side-issues that you might want to consider carefully. Did you tell the GM that you were looking for help? Or will this come as a surprise to him or her? Taken one way, this can be seen as trying to help solve a problem with the campaign; taken another, it can be seen as criticism behind his back. The big difference between the two is whether or not this is a problem that the GM himself has already acknowledged. If that’s not the case, then approach the subject delicately or you may have real-world bruised ego problems to deal with.

It’s also worth pointing out that there is not necessarily anything wrong with the approach that he is taking; it’s just that it is incompatable with the “around the world in 20 levels” objective.

These questions did not arise in our response because we had the impression that you were the GM, that being the usual interpretation of “my campaign” – there tends to be a 1-to-1 relationship between perceived ownership of the campaign and being the referee of that campaign. Just an FYI.